| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid, they will believe something because they want it to be true; or because they're afraid it might be true.
What is to keep people from believing wizards and other heroic characters to be invincible?
Take a wizard with shield and mage armor for example (or more powerful protections if you wish). If a warrior attacked him five times to no avail (failing to hit the AC) then said warrior may well think the wizard's magic insurmountable. After all, he is not wearing armor or wielding a shield--things that might leave openings he can search for. All he knows is that his sword is bouncing off some invisible force field. Add on other "invisible" magical items such as bracers of armor, rings of protection, and amulets of natural armor and even high level warriors may find themselves thinking the wizard's defenses insurmountable (whether or not this is actually true).
If an illusionist pumps his save DCs and tricks his enemies into believing a project image spell is actually him, and that he is an invincible god that cannot be harmed by "mere mortals." Then what is to keep his enemies from being utterly convinced short of successful saves or great foreknowledge of magic (such as ranks in Spellcraft and/or Knowledge: Arcana)?
A barbarian with two-hundred hit points takes multiple successive hits from a battleaxe and doesn't even flinch. What is the wielder of the battleaxe supposed to think? Even in a game where the participants assume abstract hit points where a successful hit from a battleaxe is a "near miss" rather than an actual blow, the wielder of said axe is likely thinking "I can't seem to hit this guy, maybe I'm WAY in over my head here."
In practice, I find this is not the case in most peoples' games. In fact most games are rife with unconscious metagaming. A warrior doesn't retreat because he can't hurt the wizard. He often goes after another target that he can hurt.
Why isn't he running away? Or reassessing the situation? The wizard is no less dangerous for his invincibility. To go after another target is to turn one's back on him, and thus to invite tragedy. No one in their right mind would do this in reality. If an experienced SWAT team member empties a clip into a bank robber, and his bullets do nothing, he's going to fall back and reassess the situation, not reload and open fire on a second bank robber.
Players and GMs alike today take a great many things for granted, and rarely roleplay things out from their character's perspective. As a result, this creates an illusion of invincibility that isn't shared by the character they are supposedly roleplaying. The same could be said of many GMs and their NPC creatures and characters. Monsters always fight to the death. Intelligent creatures have no sense of preservation.
Why is that? Why is everything so...gamist...these days?
Please discuss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because running away from a guy because your dice are rolling poorly isn't fun. Attacking the guy you can hit is.
Because running away from a guy because your dice are rolling poorly isn't fun. Attacking the guy you can hit is.
Granted, but do you really know that? Even out of game? If you haven't hit the guy yet, it might be because of poor rolls, or it might be because you need a natural 20 to hit his AC.
In any case, none of that really effects your character's perceptions: As far as they are concerned, they just haven't hit the guy yet.
I had the misfortune of playing in a game with a GM that often fudged his NPC's saving throws in their favor. It didn't matter that my sorcerer's save DCs for her save-or-die spells were in the high 30s (90% failure rate for CR-appropriate foes' poor saves). As a result, she would go round after round effectively accomplishing nothing.
She was eventually kicked out of the party by the other characters for not being more effective.
Though it is a bad example of play and of horrible GM abuse, it is a great example of characters' appropriate reactions to a given situation as perceived by them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In-game, the fighter is presumably part of a group. It's not unreasonable to believe -- or know -- that someone else can handle the wizard. If the fighter can't slash him to death, maybe the wizard can fireball him to death (or charm him onto our side!).
If the fighter isn't part of a group, he probably should run away. Although, the personality of the character may say differently.
In-game, the fighter is presumably part of a group. It's not unreasonable to believe -- or know -- that someone else can handle the wizard. If the fighter can't slash him to death, maybe the wizard can fireball him to death (or charm him onto our side!).
If the fighter isn't part of a group, he probably should run away. Although, the personality of the character may say differently.
What of the precast illusion (or other circumstance), in which the entire party's attacks seem ineffective?
You could argue that the problem is that 3.X/PF probably isn't gamist enough.
What you're really talking about is enemy morale. In some gaming systems (e.g. Warhammer 40k) morale can be important. I'm sure there are some variant 3.X or PF rules that add morale to typical combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends. In most games I've played, the player rolls their 20 to hit. If they have consistently rolled under 10 and continued to miss, it represents the character not performing at their best. This would be representative of the fighter realizing he hasn't really given it his best shot and that maybe THIS time he can tag him.
Now, if he rolls a 19 and still misses, presumably the player should realize they are simply not likely to succeed. And if they roll a 20 and STILL are told they have done no damage... well then, yes, the fighter should pack it in as far as the wizard is concerned.
As for turning his back, as Distant Scholar points out, this might be reasonable under the right circumstances, like if the fighter knows he has comrades at his back that he can trust to try to take the wizard on while the fighter moves to take on another combatant. Maybe the original plan called for everyone dogpiling the wizard, identified as the primary threat, but in the eventuality of combat ineffectiveness, secondary targets were picked out.
Or maybe the player is metagaming. In any event, historically this sort of mechanism would be handled through morale checks, though that was usually only ever applied to NPC's. Players were typically allowed to run their characters however unreasonably they wished, barring magical fear effects and the like.
What of the precast illusion, in which the entire party's attacks seem ineffective?In-game, the fighter is presumably part of a group. It's not unreasonable to believe -- or know -- that someone else can handle the wizard. If the fighter can't slash him to death, maybe the wizard can fireball him to death (or charm him onto our side!).
If the fighter isn't part of a group, he probably should run away. Although, the personality of the character may say differently.
In the case of an illusion, the GM has presumably described the situation as being realistic. In cases where a situation has no obvious solution... well, *my* players have typically fallen back and regrouped. :) I can't speak to the hardheadedness of the players at your table ;)
You could argue that the problem is that 3.X/PF probably isn't gamist enough.
What you're really talking about is enemy morale. In some gaming systems (e.g. Warhammer 40k) morale can be important. I'm sure there are some variant 3.X or PF rules that add morale to typical combat.
I used morale as my primary example because that is where the problem is most pronounced I think, but there are a great many other situations in which players and GMs DON'T play off of their characters' perceptions.
What could that possibly be other than a gamist's metagaming.
What's your solution?
Players and GMs need to hunker down in their character roles more, see the world not from their perspective, but from their character's.
There's nothing wrong with having a bit of metagame knowledge. That's unavoidable in a game as abstracted as Pathfinder. However, characters should be acting on what THEY know, not what YOU know.
In short, we need players and GMs to act more roleplayers.
RD example is not the best one. if the fighter miss rounds after round after round and the wizards have not charmed/blinded/put to sleep / etc... him then it is not like he has no much to fear about such wizard.
Round after round is not always the case. If a fighter makes five attacks with a single full attack action, or the entire party each makes one attack to no avail, than the characters can be left with the same impression as a low-level fighter who makes five attacks over five rounds.
Also, if the wizard in question isn't taking any serious actions to stop you, wouldn't his lack of apparent concern make him all the more frightening?
Well, no one wants to be penalized for weaknesses that they have no control over. People often see their characters as an extension of themselves -- regardless of the supposed internal separation of character from player. Most people wouldn't typically want to be purposely full of weaknesses, so they play to gamist strengths. Very few players love playing (or playing *with*) the worthless commoner PC.
So I can't see an expectation that players would purposely weaken themselves when they don't *want* to be weak. That's where the gamist solution pops in -- it's not me weakening the character, it's *fate* (or, the game system) that does it for me. That's not to say that all people play this way; I'm sure there's a small number of people who relish the opportunity to play the "worthless" commoner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Hey look, fellow bank robber! It's Superman!"
"Oh no! Ain't he bullet proof?"
"You know it! And all we have are guns!"
"Screw it. Let's just keep shooting at him. If that doesn't work, we'll throw our guns at him in the end as a futile effort."
"OKAY!"
<bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <throws guns>
"Well that was stupid."
"Like what else were we gonna do? Give up whenever he flies by?!?"
Is this reducing to the Stormwind fallacy? I hope not. . . .
Intelligent bank robbers certainly would. They've been known to run from much less fantastical threats such as police and SWAT. If you don't get caught by Superman, you might actually successfully rob a bank on the day he doesn't happen to fly by.
Wizards can tank almost as easily as fighters can with their "invisble options" alone. At high levels (where 5 attacks are expected) an AC of 40-50 is not unheard of.
A decent fighter might hit that on his opening attack, but as his iteratives get lower, the idea of him missing all of his attacks against a tank wizard is more likely than many people expect.
LVL 15 FIGHTER EXAMPLE:
15 BAB
10 Strength modifier
05 Weapon Training (w/gloves of dueling)
05 +5 magic weapon
02 Greater Weapon Focus
--
37 to hit
LVL 15 SPELLCASTER EXAMPLE
10 base
08 bracers of armor
08 Dexterity
06 +5 mithral buckler
05 amulet of natural armor
05 ring of protection
01 Dodge feat
01 ioun stone
--
44 total AC
This doesn't account for other things, such as +8 natural armor for polymorphing into a dragon.
Wizards are all insane, so there is no explaining wizard behavior. The wizard's lack of concern might simply be denial.
I think the fighter has some idea why his attacks are failing. When he's rolling low, he might feel that his timing is off or he hasn't gotten the feel of the enemy's fighting style yet. If he's missing because the enemy is heavily armored, he's not missing so much as failing to penetrate the armor. If he's missing because of a magical force effect like mage armor, he just hasn't got the right attack angle yet to compensate.
With a perception roll, he can even tell that DR is going on. Some DR is fluff described as wounds healing almost immediately. That effect can be seen in action.
To use a sports analogy, the batter knows that his last swing was poor. He might even know that it was because he was expecting a curve and got a sinker. He can get a reasonable idea wich of the pitches he's seen he could hit if they were thrown again. He might also get the idea that he can't hit this guy's fastball. Maybe that means he should bunt ?
Nicos, I've edited my post above to include a few numbers.
Let's not dwell on them though. This thread isn't about fighters VS wizards, it's about character perceptions and why people don't roleplay them out more.
Nicos, I've edited my post above to include a few numbers.
Let's not dwell on them though. This thread isn't about fighters VS wizards, it's about character perceptions and why people don't roleplay them out more.
I agree with you Ravingdork. Sometime it would be nice for a low-experience-level character to run screaming from a zombie (a realistic approach for most people when a mutilated walking corpse suddenly rises up before you) than to grimly step up and hack away with her sword, knowing (as a player) that a zombie is not too tough.
Limiting metagame interactions is the job of both the DM and the player. The player should try to play their character based on the character's stats, skills, and past experiences. I find that is rarely done. Player knowledge tends to be rampant.
In my home game I try to temper that (as DM) by asking for knowledge checks rather than letting my players assume they know x, y, and z. I also try to be descriptive in encounters. When it comes to dice rolling, though, it's hard not to metagame. If a player rolls a 19 on their attack roll and miss, they know they will hardly ever hit and react accordingly. It could be said (as mentioned above) that the character in that case knows they would have hit lesser foes and could deduce that their opponent is all but immune to their physical attacks.
Nicos, I've edited my post above to include a few numbers.
Let's not dwell on them though. This thread isn't about fighters VS wizards, it's about character perceptions and why people don't roleplay them out more.
Because, RD, not everyone is a fully immersive thespian what it comes time to roll dice. If everyone is having fun, and nobody at that group has a problem with the level of roleplaying, then where is the problem?
Because, RD, not everyone is a fully immersive thespian what it comes time to roll dice. If everyone is having fun, and nobody at that group has a problem with the level of roleplaying, then where is the problem?Nicos, I've edited my post above to include a few numbers.
Let's not dwell on them though. This thread isn't about fighters VS wizards, it's about character perceptions and why people don't roleplay them out more.
This isn't about a person's ability or inability to act. It's about having a character react according to their perceptions, rather than the players'.
I don't really think this is metagaming.
If you are fighting multiple people at once, generally what you want to do is to go after the person who you can most easily take down, get him out of the fight so you can focus on the more challenging enemy. If you are having trouble hurting the big armored knight in front of you, then turning around and charging at the guy in leather armor who's trying to sneak around behind you makes perfect sense in-character. Taking him out first so then you can focus your full attention on the more dangerous foe makes perfect sense from an in-character point of view.
It depends on the situation. If the character is roleplayed as having decided to take out the weaker minions with his allies, so that he AND his companions can then focus on the greater threat and take him out TOGETHER, then that makes some sense in game and out.
However, jumping off a 200-ft. cliff because you know your character can survive it (when the character has no reason to believe as much) then I don't know how that's not metagaming.
The Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid, they will believe something because they want it to be true; or because they're afraid it might be true.
What is to keep people from believing wizards and other heroic characters to be invincible?
Take a wizard with shield and mage armor for example (or more powerful protections if you wish). If a warrior attacked him five times to no avail (failing to hit the AC) then said warrior may well think the wizard's magic insurmountable. After all, he is not wearing armor or wielding a shield--things that might leave openings he can search for. All he knows is that his sword is bouncing off some invisible force field. Add on other "invisible" magical items such as bracers of armor, rings of protection, and amulets of natural armor and even high level warriors may find themselves thinking the wizard's defenses insurmountable (whether or not this is actually true).
The warrior knows wizards have spells that can protect them, he also knows that he has yet to strike a "really good blow" (crit) so why not keep trying.
If an illusionist pumps his save DCs and tricks his enemies into believing a project image spell is actually him, and that he is an invincible god that cannot be harmed by "mere mortals." Then what is to keep his enemies from being utterly convinced short of successful saves or great foreknowledge of magic (such as ranks in Spellcraft and/or Knowledge: Arcana)?
"Maybe it's an illusion, wizards are tricky like that".
A barbarian with two-hundred hit points takes multiple successive hits from a battleaxe and doesn't even flinch. What is the wielder of the battleaxe supposed to think? Even in a game where the participants assume abstract hit points where a successful hit from a battleaxe is a "near miss" rather than an actual blow, the wielder of said axe is likely thinking "I can't seem to hit this guy, maybe I'm WAY in over my head here."
Hits are actual blows, not "near misses", with a lot of hit points they are more like scratches and cuts.
One would think that the axe wielder would think "Eventualy I'll get a good shot, and so far he hasn't hurt me that much".In practice, I find this is not the case in most peoples' games. In fact most games are rife with unconscious metagaming. A warrior doesn't retreat because he can't hurt the wizard. He often goes after another target that he can hurt.
In none of the examples do you mention anyone getting hurt by the "invincible" opponents, that in my experience, is when people retreat.
Why isn't he running away?
He has a job to do, or he doesn't want to get hit in the back?
Or reassessing the situation?
One does not have to run away to reassess.
The wizard is no less dangerous for his invincibility. To go after another target is to turn one's back on him, and thus to invite tragedy. No one in their right mind would do this in reality. If an experienced SWAT team member empties a clip into a bank robber, and his bullets do nothing, he's going to fall back and reassess the situation, not reload and open fire on a second bank robber.
Unless his partner happens to have a better gun.
Or there are civilians nearby and by continuing to shoot he gives them a chance to escape.
Or, he knows about body armor and knows that one good shot will finish the guy.
The warrior knows wizards have spells that can protect them, he also knows that he has yet to strike a "really good blow" (crit) so why not keep trying.The Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid, they will believe something because they want it to be true; or because they're afraid it might be true.
What is to keep people from believing wizards and other heroic characters to be invincible?
Take a wizard with shield and mage armor for example (or more powerful protections if you wish). If a warrior attacked him five times to no avail (failing to hit the AC) then said warrior may well think the wizard's magic insurmountable. After all, he is not wearing armor or wielding a shield--things that might leave openings he can search for. All he knows is that his sword is bouncing off some invisible force field. Add on other "invisible" magical items such as bracers of armor, rings of protection, and amulets of natural armor and even high level warriors may find themselves thinking the wizard's defenses insurmountable (whether or not this is actually true).
How? If he doesn't have one of the following three things, how does he know ANYTHING about the wizard's protections or whether or not he can EVER get past them?
1) Spellcraft ranks
2) Knowledge: Arcana ranks
3) Previous experiences with spellcasters using the same or similar spells.
If an illusionist pumps his save DCs and tricks his enemies into believing a project image spell is actually him, and that he is an invincible god that cannot be harmed by "mere mortals." Then what is to keep his enemies from being utterly convinced short of successful saves or great foreknowledge of magic (such as ranks in Spellcraft and/or Knowledge: Arcana)?"Maybe it's an illusion, wizards are tricky like that".
If he doesn't have one of the above 3 things, or hasn't yet made a save, then there is no reason for him to be thinking anything of the sort. It's a player imposing metagame knowledge onto his character for his own benefit.
A barbarian with two-hundred hit points takes multiple successive hits from a battleaxe and doesn't even flinch. What is the wielder of the battleaxe supposed to think? Even in a game where the participants assume abstract hit points where a successful hit from a battleaxe is a "near miss" rather than an actual blow, the wielder of said axe is likely thinking "I can't seem to hit this guy, maybe I'm WAY in over my head here."Hits are actual blows, not "near misses", with a lot of hit points they are more like scratches and cuts.
One would think that the axe wielder would think "Eventualy I'll get a good shot, and so far he hasn't hurt me that much".
That's another debate entirely. Groups tend to interpret damage differently. Even if you consider hits to be mere nicks and cuts until you get a critical or until the guy goes down, a competent fighter seemingly unable to get anything OTHER than nicks and cuts on his opponent might come to believe that getting a solid hit is next to impossible.
In practice, I find this is not the case in most peoples' games. In fact most games are rife with unconscious metagaming. A warrior doesn't retreat because he can't hurt the wizard. He often goes after another target that he can hurt.In none of the examples do you mention anyone getting hurt by the "invincible" opponents, that in my experience, is when people retreat.
That's because it isn't directly relevant to the discussion. If you are there to stop the BBEG who claims to be immortal, then whether or not he chooses to attack you is irrelevant (your job is to stop him). If, however, you are there to rescue hostages, then it isn't about his capability to hurt you. It's about his capability to hurt the hostages. As with all scenarios, circumstances may make it more or less relevant to the discussion.
In any case, I did bring it up a few times. I mentioned turning your back on an enemy as being incredibly dangerous and foolhardy up thread. This, of course, assumes that your foe possesses some ability to harm you.
Why isn't he running away?He has a job to do, or he doesn't want to get hit in the back?
See above.
Or reassessing the situation?One does not have to run away to reassess.
This is true, provided your foe truly is unable to hurt you (unlikely) or that your continued presence doesn't in some way jeopardize your goal.
The wizard is no less dangerous for his invincibility. To go after another target is to turn one's back on him, and thus to invite tragedy. No one in their right mind would do this in reality. If an experienced SWAT team member empties a clip into a bank robber, and his bullets do nothing, he's going to fall back and reassess the situation, not reload and open fire on a second bank robber.Unless his partner happens to have a better gun.
Or there are civilians nearby and by continuing to shoot he gives them a chance to escape.
Or, he knows about body armor and knows that one good shot will finish the guy.
I was thinking more like Superman, rather than body armor, where your best guns have already proven to be seemingly useless.
.
What could that possibly be other than a gamist's metagaming.
You say this like it's such an inherently bad thing.
Yes, this is an RPG, where RP stands for role playing.
Care to take a guess what the "G" stands for?
Playing the game like a game is not bad. Playing the game like a role player is not bad. Applying some common sense (which can be construed as metagaming) to your role playing is the best middle ground IMO. If your Fighter is traveling with a Wizard or some other spellcaster you could safely assume that he knows the general, more common applications of magic. He knows Wizards have magic shields. He knows illusions exist. He might not know "Hey, that Wizard has an AC of 50 when my BaB is only +20" or something, but he does know "Well, I know the Wizard CAN be hit, and spells kind of move a lot faster than I do, so may as well keep trying." or at the very least "Well I can't seem to do anything about him, and there's 5 other guys who are trying to kill me, may as well let my own Wizard take care of him, I trust him to watch my back."
Intelligent bank robbers certainly would. They've been known to run from much less fantastical threats such as police and SWAT. If you don't get caught by Superman, you might actually successfully rob a bank on the day he doesn't happen to fly by.
Intelligent bank robbers would also know you can't run away from the guy who flies, is infinitely faster than you are, and can see through walls. Running is pointless, at least shooting the gun at Superman gives you the satisfaction of shooting the gun.
|
Intelligent bank robbers would also know you can't run away from the guy who flies, is infinitely faster than you are, and can see through walls. Running is pointless, at least shooting the gun at Superman gives you the satisfaction of shooting the gun.
Besides, maybe today is the day someone slipped kryptonite into his cereal.
Raving Dork,
Real people have been known to jump from tremendous heights without necessarily any expectation of survival. They do it when it's the least bad alternative (e.g., if you were in the Twin Towers in a room on fire on 9/11). Some people have survived falls from extreme heights, even in the real world. Someone who is more than 5th level must KNOW that they have some sort of divine or mystical protection, as judged by the sort of things they frequently survive.
But acts of desperation are not what we often see in roleplaying games. Many characters jump simple because it is convenient, and without any knowledge of "being guided by the divine" whatsoever.
As to other posters, it amazes me how many people try to get their cake and east it too. People argue all the time that characters should ignore those they can't hurt and go after those they can. Yet when I say, "that's okay provided it makes in-game sense for them to do so" peoples' arguments suddenly shift to things like this:Haters goin' to hate and metagamers goin' to game, I guess.Yes, this is an RPG, where RP stands for role playing.
Care to take a guess what the "G" stands for?
My argument hasn't shifted at all.
I also like how you ignored the rest of the post.
The warrior knows wizards have spells that can protect them, he also knows that he has yet to strike a "really good blow" (crit) so why not keep trying.How? If he doesn't have one of the following three things, how does he know ANYTHING about the wizard's protections or whether or not he can EVER get past them?
1) Spellcraft ranks
2) Knowledge: Arcana ranks
3) Previous experiences with spellcasters using the same or similar spells.
Without those skills he may not know Specific information, but in a world with Real Magic he would know that wizards use magic and that magic does stuff and some of that stuff is protecting the wizard.
He knows it is a wizard be casue of the pointy hat.Being a warrior he would also know that he has yet to get in a Really Good Hit, so why give up?
Now, if he did get in a Really Good Hit (crit) or two and there was no effect then I could see your point.
That's another debate entirely. Groups tend to interpret damage differently. Even if you consider hits to be mere nicks and cuts until you get a critical or until the guy goes down, a competent fighter seemingly unable to get anything OTHER than nicks and cuts on his opponent might come to believe that getting a solid hit is next to impossible.Hits are actual blows, not "near misses", with a lot of hit points they are more like scratches and cuts.
One would think that the axe wielder would think "Eventualy I'll get a good shot, and so far he hasn't hurt me that much".
Well, you did bring up the 'near miss' arguement but lets leave that for now.
As far as the warrior vs barbarian goes, "Well, it takes more than one swing of the axe to chop down a tree" thought the warrior as he continued to nick and scratch the barbarian to death.In practice, I find this is not the case in most peoples' games. In fact most games are rife with unconscious metagaming. A warrior doesn't retreat because he can't hurt the wizard. He often goes after another target that he can hurt.In none of the examples do you mention anyone getting hurt by the "invincible" opponents, that in my experience, is when people retreat.
That's because it isn't directly relevant to the discussion.
Oh but it is, you have not hurt them but they have not hurt you either. So far it sounds like a tie.
Oh but it is, you have not hurt them but they have not hurt you either. So far it sounds like a tie.
Except I did not propose a situation in which the defender was not dangerous, you did. It is only relevant when said situation is true (which it rarely is).
"Hey look, fellow bank robber! It's Superman!"
"Oh no! Ain't he bullet proof?"
"You know it! And all we have are guns!"
"Screw it. Let's just keep shooting at him. If that doesn't work, we'll throw our guns at him in the end as a futile effort."
"OKAY!"
<bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <bang!> <throws guns>
Actually, thrown guns are more dangerous to Superman than bullets. Proof about 55 seconds in.
You could argue that the problem is that 3.X/PF probably isn't gamist enough.
What you're really talking about is enemy morale. In some gaming systems (e.g. Warhammer 40k) morale can be important. I'm sure there are some variant 3.X or PF rules that add morale to typical combat.
I used morale as my primary example because that is where the problem is most pronounced I think, but there are a great many other situations in which players and GMs DON'T play off of their characters' perceptions.
What could that possibly be other than a gamist's metagaming.
I'd love to play in a game where battles had more possible outcomes than a 90% likelihood of utter massacre of one side. Everyone at the table would have to be into it too though. Otherwise its a case of me not contributing to winning. Yes it is completely metagaming that we know we should be able to win so it makes sense to fight till the bitter end, but thats what our gaming culture has becomes. Running away is rare. Talking a situation out only happens when the DM telegraphs that it is possible, or even worth trying. Otherwise we are giving the enemy valuable time with which to get ready to kill us.
But, again, I'd love to have a better variety. Generally people don't want to die, and people don't want to recieve wounds, even those they can survive. I find parlay, retreat and surrender as acceptable outcomes to battle sometimes, but they rarely happen.
Oh how did I miss this thread. I tend to like all of RD's threads. ^.^"
Frabjous! :D
The Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid, they will believe something because they want it to be true; or because they're afraid it might be true.
** spoiler omitted **
What is to keep people from believing wizards and other heroic characters to be invincible?
Take a wizard with shield and mage armor for example (or more powerful protections if you wish). If a warrior attacked him five times to no avail (failing to hit the AC) then said warrior may well think the wizard's magic insurmountable. After all, he is not wearing armor or wielding a shield--things that might leave openings he can search for. All he knows is that his sword is bouncing off some invisible force field. Add on other "invisible" magical items such as bracers of armor, rings of protection, and amulets of natural armor and even high level warriors may find themselves thinking the wizard's defenses insurmountable (whether or not this is actually true).
My first impulse would be that the characters in-game are as adept or better adept to read the results of the behind the scenes dice rolls than we are. We might see that a roll of 8 when 10 would have worked. The fighter might have saw the shield giving way just a bit but his blow was a glancing one, so he decides that if he can get a strike that is more on the mark and less glancing he may penetrate the wizards' bubble. A lot of factors could go into this, including visual and tactile clues (how does it look, do you feel the sword making progress or the shield giving way?), or even olfactory or auditory clues (is there a strange smell that occurs as the magic gives way, like a gaseous bubble splitting, or does it make a sound like metal being stressed?).
If an illusionist pumps his save DCs and tricks his enemies into believing a project image spell is actually him, and that he is an invincible god that cannot be harmed by "mere mortals." Then what is to keep his enemies from being utterly convinced short of successful saves or great foreknowledge of magic (such as ranks in Spellcraft and/or Knowledge: Arcana)?
They might buy into it. I know my brother and his friend did in a game where an evil Djinn was using an illusion spell to much the same effect. They were pretty sure they were boned. Of course, those with experience with such matters may try to validate the claims of the illusion through the use of spells and the like, or ask for some sort of proof (though asking a projected image for proof of wizardry may result in you being spoon-fed a lightning bolt :P).
A barbarian with two-hundred hit points takes multiple successive hits from a battleaxe and doesn't even flinch. What is the wielder of the battleaxe supposed to think? Even in a game where the participants assume abstract hit points where a successful hit from a battleaxe is a "near miss" rather than an actual blow, the wielder of said axe is likely thinking "I can't seem to hit this guy, maybe I'm WAY in over my head here."
That person would be correct. Probably way in over his head unless he can withstand similar punishment. A low-level warrior vs a higher level barbarian may wet his pants when the barbarian blocks greataxes with headbutts. In general however an attacker is aware they dealt damage (just as you're aware when your attack fails due to Damage Reduction and the like), so it becomes an issue as to where you realize they're not invincible, but you must decide if you think it's worth it to try and hack them down despite their inhuman fortitude.
In practice, I find this is not the case in most peoples' games. In fact most games are rife with unconscious metagaming. A warrior doesn't retreat because he can't hurt the wizard. He often goes after another target that he can hurt.
To be fair, just because you can't hurt the wizard doesn't mean you should go home. If the wizard cast some sort of tricky spell that resulted in him being immune to damage but as a result also couldn't interact with the world, the wizard just became an observer in your conflict. Or you might leave it for your wizard to deal with.
Why isn't he running away? Or reassessing the situation? The wizard is no less dangerous for his invincibility. To go after another target is to turn one's back on him, and thus to invite tragedy. No one in their right mind would do this in reality. If an experienced SWAT team member empties a clip into a bank robber, and his bullets do nothing, he's going to fall back and reassess the situation, not reload and open fire on a second bank robber.
Again, I think that it depends on the person and why they think something, or perhaps don't think at all. For some people the natural instinct when something doesn't appear to be damaged is to hit it harder, or repeatedly.
It's also important to realize that the reverse is true. When you've accomplished so much, and you are the guy who scares other guys because you stopped shaving because it's easier to just let some orc whack you in the face with a greatsword in the morning ('cause it cuts off way more hair per swipe, leaving that baby's bottom feeling on your cheeks) then giving up just because something doesn't look so hot is probably not your first impulse. You're a badass. He's a badass. You're not invincible, so he probably has an Achilles heel somewhere.
Players and GMs alike today take a great many things for granted, and rarely roleplay things out from their character's perspective. As a result, this creates an illusion of invincibility that isn't shared by the character they are supposedly roleplaying. The same could be said of many GMs and their NPC creatures and characters. Monsters always fight to the death. Intelligent creatures have no sense of preservation.
I disagree that monsters always fight to the death. In fact, many of my NPCs -- especially things like animals and beasts -- are likely to run the heck away when things start looking bad, or even when someone does something that scares the hell out of them (for example, animals are gonna be skittish of fire). This is more of a game style thing if anything.
Why is that? Why is everything so...gamist...these days?
I don't think that it is. Some of it is Last Action Hero Syndrome. You're looking at things from the perspective not of your character but the perspective of a normal person. A normal person is not a D&D hero. A D&D character knows his/her limits, so while a normal person may say "Oh f-that!" when the big bad skydives off a cliff to escape, the 10th level Barbarian may shout "Bonzaaaai!" and skydive down after him. Because the 10th level Barbarian is confident that for whatever reason he is capable of doing this (either via a ring of feather falling, or because he knows that in the grant scheme of things he can take a good dozen battleaxes to the gut and walk away from it so hitting the ground isn't going to be that bad for him).
Sometimes it's just stubborn nature. How many times have you seen the good guys in some form of media be in a tight pickle and simply choose to not give up? The big bad evil guy has acquired the McGuffen, Meteor is on its way. He's a minor demigod. You should probably go home, the ol' boy is unstoppable. Of course, you don't go home because you're not generic swat team member #3, you are *insert PC name here* and you came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum and the big bad blew up all your bubblegum!
In a world with magic, grant tales of people overcoming creatures of absolute nightmares, and so forth, one might think that PCs think differently than your average police officer on the street (who's a 1st level warrior at best, maybe an expert). Then some people are just plain crazy (probably the ones who would risk their lives for treasure delving in dungeons I'd wager), kind of like my brother and I who would have just way too much fun in a zombie apocalypse.
As usual, Ashiel provides the most thought and articulate opinions on all things pathfinder.
This thread has definitely been food for thought. I don't think I agree with the argument that RD seems to be making, but it has forced me to think a bit about how my character perceives what happens in combat and how he makes decisions on what to do.
|
Don't forget the time frame for some of these actions. If a Fighter swings and misses a few times, maybe only 30 seconds have passed? It seems much longer to the players, but time passes very slowly when you're going in six second increments. Sure, you might be missing, but if your character thinks it only will take a single strike to bring the Wizard down? Especially if the GM describes the Wizard's actions as dodging versus magic force field, I'd be much more likely to try and plant a better strike.
As usual, Ashiel provides the most thought and articulate opinions on all things pathfinder.
This thread has definitely been food for thought. I don't think I agree with the argument that RD seems to be making, but it has forced me to think a bit about how my character perceives what happens in combat and how he makes decisions on what to do.
Um...if that's not sarcasm then...thank you. (z@.@z)
Just to add, this debate forgets that there is a mechanical system involved that very poorly represents anything of a smoother realism.
HP, AC, ext really take things out of immersion, as just above me he mentions how a high lvl barb can take a pile a great axe chops to the gut for breakfast, and continue on, or someone jumping from crazy heights just because they can grunt and roll with it makes noo sense. Even many of the fantasy novels that have made dnd, they do not cater to these crazy mechanics that destroy the realism we know, or somewhat close to.
So how characters perceive things in the game compared to how players perceive them in the real world also makes a big difference in perspective.
Also when a player ignores an opponent, it isn~t like he is just casually walking away from him or not paying attention to him anymore, he is combat ready and actively trying to avoid damage.
If a melee hero is missing, they probably shouldn't think a target is invincible until they have got off their perfect cut/bash (20), and seen the effect, if any. High magic defences are good, but full plate, a nice shield and some defensive feats is also extremely difficult for a level 1 to get through, but they can.
If they have some experience, they will know their capabilities, and that they have made a perfect attack in the past, if the norm isn't working, they need to do their best. Their utter best.
I ran an encounter like this, it was the ghost of a sword master. You had to hit him with a 20 to put him to rest. If you didn't after a certain amount of time, he would open you up. This is because he had a life of so many easy victories, but one day he bothered the wrong person. Who killed him out-right with their natural 20.